“Maintenance Is Not A Bonanza”: Allahabad High Court Rejects Wife’s Plea For Higher Maintenance From Husband

UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has rejected a wife's demand to increase her monthly maintenance from ₹15,000, holding that Section 125 CrPC maintenance is meant to provide financial support, not an unfair financial benefit.

Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed the petitions filed by both husband and wife against the Jaunpur Family Court's November 4, 2024 order. The wife sought higher maintenance, while the husband sought to cancel the maintenance order.

The wife claimed that her husband, a B.Tech graduate and co-founder and CEO of InnoApps Technologies Private Limited, earned approximately ₹4 lakh per month. She relied on company records showing authorised share capital of ₹50 lakh and paid-up capital of ₹20 lakh.

Read Also;- Difference Between CRPC 125 maintenance and DV Act

However, the husband's salary slip showed a monthly income of ₹50,000. The High Court found that the wife had failed to prove her claim of ₹4 lakh monthly income. It held that a person's position in a company or its share capital cannot automatically establish his salary.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy(2017) 14 SCC 200, which treated 25% of the husband's net income as a reasonable maintenance benchmark. However, this percentage is not mandatory.

In this case, 25% of ₹50,000 comes to ₹12,500, while the wife was already receiving ₹15,000 per month, equivalent to 30% of the husband's assessed monthly income. The Court therefore found no reason to increase the amount.

The husband also argued that his wife was educated, held a B.Ed. degree and had previously worked as a teacher at Mount Litera Zee School, Ghaziabad, earning ₹45,000 monthly. However, the wife maintained that these salary slips related only to three months in 2021 and did not establish her employment or earnings when she filed the maintenance case in 2022.

Read Also:- Welfare Scheme House Allotment To Wife Is Not Enough To Deny Maintenance, Husband’s Unemployment Claim Rejected: Allahabad High Court Says Able-Bodied Husband Must Maintain Wife

The High Court explained that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must consider the claimant's genuine needs, the paying person's financial capacity and the parties' standard of living. It cannot be used to provide an unjustified financial advantage.

The Court ultimately upheld the ₹15,000 monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court and dismissed both revisions on September 22, 2026.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Wife's Demand Rejected: Allahabad High Court refused to increase the wife's ₹15,000 monthly maintenance.
• ₹4 Lakh Salary Claim Unproved: The wife alleged that her husband earned ₹4 lakh monthly but failed to establish it through reliable evidence.
• CEO Does Not Mean Unlimited Income: A husband's corporate designation cannot justify inflated maintenance demands without proof of his actual earnings.
• Maintenance Is Not a Bonanza: Section 125 CrPC protects genuine financial needs. It is not a tool for securing an unmerited financial advantage.
• Men Cannot Be Made to Pay on Assumptions: The Court upheld ₹15,000 monthly maintenance while rejecting both parties' revisions. A husband's legal obligation must reflect proven financial capacity, not exaggerated income claims